There are claims that the vodafone logo has a 666 in it, and I sure do see it. (the two o's are six's and the six at the top) Now look at the origins logo. The first two sixes are obvious in the big O. The third is hinted in the specially hooked 'G'. Apparently there are many examples of 666 and occult references in major corporate logos. Like Lucent technologies having an address of 666 5TH AVE in NYC and the name is an alteration of Lucifer technologies.

Hey I think it's great that EA is entering the market... I guess they must 'tow the line' and help bring in our new wrld order and communicate with the subconscious mind about who's in control.

Don't fight the messenger.

LOLOcopter! You forgot the Illuminati and their real masters: Majestic 12!!! You're a poor messenger..

KilrathiAce wrote on Jun 15, 2011, 00:54:OH yea, if ME3 is exclusive to origin only that means I wont be buying it, I bought me1 and 2 on steam and if its not on steam I wont be buying it, but I am not saying I wont be playing it.

I wondered how long it would be until someone broke out this bullshit. 16 posts... I'm actually surprised it took that long.

I used to buy the occasional game and play many. Somewhere along the line, that changed. My disposable income didn't change, my spending habits did. I can't point to just one thing and say "that's why!" it was really a culmination of things. For software, I'm practically 100% legit now. I've even started to dredge the bottom for getting licenses. I bought FRAPS, god knows they deserved it (even though it was $37). Next pay-check, I'm buying WinRAR. It's $29, but again they will deserve it. I really am at the bottom of the barrel, there is practically no software left on my system that isn't legitimate.

At the same time, for every title I own I don't have to put the disc in the drive to play it. That is a limitation that just pisses me off and while grey it isn't outright illegal to make my games that way where I live. It is illegal in the US. First-hand experience tells me that piracy isn't so simple an issue. I'm not saying it is ever justified, just that I've come around to buying all my software without knowing exactly where I changed.

I'm going to link to this only because I've been discussing this story with my friends on Facebook as well. One of my friends - who used to work for EA said exactly: "I haven't bought an EA game since I left the company entirely on principle because of how they treated their staff."

Now, this was more than a few years ago that he worked for them and in the meantime EA has stated publicly that they have changed their practices. So, for the purpose of memory only when you're deciding whether or not EA is a "good" company: look a bit into the past.

Esoteric wrote on Jun 15, 2011, 01:24:I'm definitely in the Valve/Steam camp, but this competition MAY be good for us all. That is if EA actually tries to be better than Steam, and not just rely on exclusives.

Unlikely. That would require them to work harder than they need to and expend more money than they need to.

All EA needs to do to make this successful is restrict all their new titles to Origin and have the games link to it for updates. Their games are big enough that MOST people will accept it, even if it annoys them. The few that claim to boycott may do so for one or two titles, but they'll captiulate once they realize the world has ignored them once again.

I've no doubt in my mind that this will be successful and will result in more money for EA with no cut to pay to steam or brick and mortar retailers. The system, once developed (and it already is) requires almost no additional money from EA and since you won't be able to buy the titles elsewhere, there's no concern for competition to drive them to improve service.

Valve made Steam what it was today because when they envisioned it, they had to compete with a very dominant brick and mortar system at the time, and the few scattered other digital delivery systems that showed up. The only titles they could control where they were released were their own, so they were forced to improve their service because of the competition they faced. EA will have none of that with their system. Not unless they intend to allow other publishers to release games over Origin, which I doubt they will.

Once Ubisoft sees this successful, they'll follow suit as well with their own system, no doubt (if they're not already developing one).

You are right. Once Origin has a track record, then I'll see for myself if it is any good. I use and trust Steam because as you say it was "first on the block." It had a rough start (Half-Life 2 launch day was *not* fun) but over the years the ONLY times it has let me down weren't it's fault: it was when my ISP's internet connection got borken. Now, when you say "Ubisoft will follow suit.." That IS A PROBLEM. The last thing any gamer wants is a fricken' Cambrian explosion of digital providers. I DON'T want 30 bloody sources, depending on who publishes it, to maintain accounts on. A few big sources keep complexity low and they were the ones with enough vision to get into it in the first place - good for them. Now, if someone wants to be a truly worthy successor - or equal in the field - they'd better offer something of value and not artificially inflate themselves through "exclusives." Because that would just be a slime move.

Edit: And I'll say this myself before someone points it out: Steam, with the launch of Half-Life 2 DID make it an "exclusive" because you had to use it to get patches. But, they gave you something of real value in return - especially at the time - you didn't have to put the bloody disc in the drive every time you played.

I don't know exactly how many games I've re-bought on Steam exactly because you don't have to put the disc in the drive: more than 7 and less than 12.

KilrathiAce wrote on Jun 15, 2011, 00:54:OH yea, if ME3 is exclusive to origin only that means I wont be buying it, I bought me1 and 2 on steam and if its not on steam I wont be buying it, but I am not saying I wont be playing it.

A wink is as good as a nod to a blind horse. I hear ya, at least any titles of that "nature" wouldn't have left over Steam "hooks" for my legitimate purchases to worry about. And in the last 3 years, *ALL* my acquisitions have been legitimate: it would seriously, and I really mean it, pain me if that changed because a deal became sour for me.

noman wrote on Jun 15, 2011, 00:42:I like this development. Steam's DRM (in how it ties a game to an account, and makes giving the game to others impractical) is quite bad. Alternate services such as Impulse, GFWL, Amazon Dl or even EA DM (now Origin) are much better in giving customers more option in how to install (and patch) a product. Basically all these services, make the entire DVD-ROM content available, and it's up to you how and where to install the game, and which of the publicly available patches you can apply.

I wish more developers follow this route and go to non Steamworks DRM (or NO DRM).

Impulse, at least for Stardock (the platform owner) games only allows you to get patches for the games through their service. They aren't available as stand-alone installers anywhere else at all. And you must use the enclosed serial in the product - which is single use - to register in the client and have that associated with your account before you can get any patches.

Tumbler wrote on Jun 15, 2011, 00:45:

Impulse I only have because you can't get Galactic Civilizations II anywhere else

You can buy Galactic Civ II in stores (you could in the past anyway) but to register it and use it online, IE download all the updated content you have to use impulse. This is all EA will have to do with games like Mass Effect 3, Battlefield 3 and TOR. You can buy a boxed copy anywhere you like but it will be connected to origin. Much like how many games are attached to steam. For the moment it looks like origin is only affecting people buying software from origin, I would assume buying Alice in a physical box just used their standard drm servers? I would assume they plan to roll drm services into this system as soon as possible so that games in the future all fall under this one system.

You're technically right: you can buy GC2 in lot's of places, but see above, you have to register it - single use - to get any patches.

Edit: And I'll relate a little story about Impulse I have. I bought GalCivII. Then the first expansion came out and the only thing I could find in the stores was the "Gold" pack than included both GalCivII and it's first add-on Dark Avatar. So I bought that. When I emailed them asking for the base game serial to be unregistered from my account they politely but firmly declined. That was sad but I don't fault them for it. In contrast: on Steam, when I buy games - as collections - which includes a title I already own I'm usually able to gift the original license away. And that exact little fact is why I give preference to Steam when a title is available on both.

---

And as Teddy said: "The valid for one copy" part isn't clear yet. But I'll be damned if I support the service if the downloads part of it is limited in uses in any way at all.

Edit: Teddy edited his post with a quote from Origin's FAQ saying you can always re-download your games. However, I'm still squinting at it with a leery eye..

Well. While EA is measuring how far they can piss with Valve.. Meanwhile I won't be picking up Alice. I'm not going to go to an service that says: "Valid for one copy of.." Yeah, screw that. I only have Steam and Impulse accounts and I'm not getting any more. Impulse I only have because you can't get Galactic Civilizations II anywhere else and if a game is on both Impulse and Steam I get the Steam version: which, ta-da, I can download as many times as I need to in the future.

headkase wrote on Jun 13, 2011, 22:21:You know, just sayin', the problem stated in Homefront is real. Nukes in space. The USA is rapidly on track to have perfect missile defenses: no ICBM nuke will make it to US soil. BUT, if you just launch them high above the US and don't try to make it through the missile shield before you detonate them: massive electromagnetic pulse. All your power lines (well the lines will be fine but all the substations will be burnt out), your computers, your cars, just turned into junk. Now, try to fix and replace *ALL* of it at the same time.

And at the same time, the US retaliates and incinerates your entire country. So... epic win?

Creston

In a traditional world, yes: "epic" win. But in a world where the nation that launched the nukes and the people responsible for launching the nukes are not the same..

ICBM's travel through space. They just not supposed to go off until they're back on the ground. You know why nuclear weapons are illegal in space? Because they tried it once. Over the Pacific which fortunately didn't have a lot to fry at the time. They did it once and never did it again because of the effects. The Russians at the time looked at the test and (likely) said to themselves: yeah, we won't even bother to try and replicate that one for ourselves.

You know, just sayin', the problem stated in Homefront is real. Nukes in space. The USA is rapidly on track to have perfect missile defenses: no ICBM nuke will make it to US soil. BUT, if you just launch them high above the US and don't try to make it through the missile shield before you detonate them: massive electromagnetic pulse. All your power lines (well the lines will be fine but all the substations will be burnt out), your computers, your cars, just turned into junk. Now, try to fix and replace *ALL* of it at the same time.

Ok, so someone with enough nukes could launch a suicide attack against the US and take out our electronics. Then what? What's their endgame? Do they have some kind of desperate need to depopulate their country... completely? Just not making much sense here...

Here's another scenario that's just as bad as "hackers getting direct control of nuclear networks." The Russians during the cold war built a "doomsday device." It's purpose was to maintain the balance of power against US nuclear submarines that could just surface off the Russian coast and launch a preemptive attack. They *really* should turn that thing off because while it had a purpose during the cold war it's a liability now. It's basically a network of seismographs and if they pick up the signature of a nuclear explosion on Russian soil they start counting down. If they don't get a signal to stop the countdown they launch all their nukes when the times up. And all those nukes are still pointed at the US because there is simply no better place to point them yet. Only top politicians in Russia have the codes to stop it. So, some rag-tag band of terrorists get a hold of *1* nuke. Place that puppy in Moscow. Set off the seismographs at the same time as vaporizing the people with the authority to turn it off. You would hope the Russians thought of that but even really smart people don't think of everything.

As for the same rag-tag terrorists smuggling a nuke into a US city (and perhaps a Russian one) that's not likely to happen. US cities (who knows how many yet but eventually it'll probably be all of them) are ringed with radiation detectors put up for exactly that type of attack. You never read about them first-hand, but you do read about cancer treatment patients being stopped every once in a while traveling between US cities. The radiation in their bodies from the treatment while super low is still detectable - apparently - because that group of people do get stopped.

But above all that, you just got to have faith in people. I lived through the Cold War and it was a freaky time. Once the Soviet Union fell a story would trickle out every few years and it was always about some kind of malfunction with an early warning system here or that type. And what happened invariably? The people, the average person, who just happened to be in the position to make it all go to hell just simply refused to launch. The just didn't do it. Yes, they were disciplined and some even went to prison but no one was going to be responsible for the end of the world. And events of that kind happened on both sides over the years.

Seriously, nation to nation nukes are all kinds of simple but when you're dealing with tiny little threats that may just happen to have a big bang because of the inevitable proliferation of arms over the decades: I really hope the people who really know what's going on have updated their plans.

The assumption is sanity. Any nation that lobbed enough nukes to do that would likely be a glowing hole for centuries to come. But, say some really good hacker manages to penetrate Russian nuclear control networks? That's probably not possible but people all over the world are really creative and really insane too.

You know, just sayin', the problem stated in Homefront is real. Nukes in space. The USA is rapidly on track to have perfect missile defenses: no ICBM nuke will make it to US soil. BUT, if you just launch them high above the US and don't try to make it through the missile shield before you detonate them: massive electromagnetic pulse. All your power lines (well the lines will be fine but all the substations will be burnt out), your computers, your cars, just turned into junk. Now, try to fix and replace *ALL* of it at the same time.

You should. And if you don't: play Homefront, you'll need the practice.

To put it into context: At the end of World War II the United States emerged as a Super-Power. It did so not because of manifest destiny but rather because all of it's competitors had their entire infrastructures bombed completely into ruin. Europe had to rebuild from scratch. And while they were rebuilding the USA did not stop building so it was a game of catch-up. Now, the United States is no longer anything special: it has no unique capabilities when it comes to production or research against the rest of the world. The USA Empire*is* fast fading. China will overtake the United States in production and educated citizens right quickly now (in Nation time scales that is: 20 years). The economy of the United States which enjoyed this period of high prosperity by exporting everything to everybody else because everybody else's factories were holes-in-the-ground is over. Notice things say "made in China" now? This is invariably shifting the balance. I live in Canada. I just bought $99.98USD worth of goods on Steam this morning. I paid $99.05CDN. So, the Canadian dollar to the US dollar is about 1.02:1 - ballpark - that is terrible for the US! When I was a kid, 1 Canadian dollar was worth $0.64 US dollars. The US is neck-deep in trouble and has their head in the sand: still acting like a Super-Power when they categorically aren't anymore sans nuclear weapons.

So, what does this mean for Americans? Aside from the Greater Korean invasion part, Homefront should scare the shit out of them.

You know though, if Africa and the Mid-East smarten up like the recent revolutions in the area promise: they would be ideal markets for everyone to export goods to, enough anyway to give the US some life-support. It would be awesome if those other nations started fresh down the path of democracy in the next few decades.

You should. And if you don't: play Homefront, you'll need the practice.

To put it into context: At the end of World War II the United States emerged as a Super-Power. It did so not because of manifest destiny but rather because all of it's competitors had their entire infrastructures bombed completely into ruin. Europe had to rebuild from scratch. And while they were rebuilding the USA did not stop building so it was a game of catch-up. Now, the United States is no longer anything special: it has no unique capabilities when it comes to production or research against the rest of the world. The USA Empire*is* fast fading. China will overtake the United States in production and educated citizens right quickly now (in Nation time scales that is: 20 years). The economy of the United States which enjoyed this period of high prosperity by exporting everything to everybody else because everybody else's factories were holes-in-the-ground is over. Notice things say "made in China" now? This is invariably shifting the balance. I live in Canada. I just bought $99.98USD worth of goods on Steam this morning. I paid $99.05CDN. So, the Canadian dollar to the US dollar is about 1.02:1 - ballpark - that is terrible for the US! When I was a kid, 1 Canadian dollar was worth $0.64 US dollars. The US is neck-deep in trouble and has their head in the sand: still acting like a Super-Power when they categorically aren't anymore sans nuclear weapons.

So, what does this mean for Americans? Aside from the Greater Korean invasion part, Homefront should scare the shit out of them.

This is central planning and what is brainwashed into everyone, but it's not often true. And anyway, 'being wealthy' isn't all it's cracked up to be. It's only a carrot used to keep the masses under control. It's not all that different in how games nowadays use weapon unlocks and leveling as a carrot-like system.

Freedom and human dignity is true wealth. Wealth under tyranny is slavery and suffering. We are all born wealthy. Human insanity is what takes our wealth away.

Ok, you're crazy, but your first paragraph is half-true.There is lessened upward mobility now. And I relate it directly to those strict tax cuts. When someone is free to make $20MM in a year he'll do so. That comes at the expense of everyone else. Back in the "pick yourself up by your bootstrap" days people making that much more than the rest was far less common. Since money was still being made it needed to go somewhere. It went to a wider pool of employees. This allowed for more upward mobility.

Now the wealth goes to fewer people, making class changes far less common.

I think the second paragraph, Freedom and Dignity is True Wealth, is an ideal. But, let's just go on anyway: focusing on "That comes at the expense of everyone else." That is called a zero-sum game. Technology right now is making it increasingly possible to break out of that mold. Automation is the key: it is within sight that all human needs can be taken care of by machines in a self-sustainable and intervention-free manner. Utopia. Of course lots of people are going to try and twist away from that possibility but the potential is truly there. If we achieve Utopia then we are in a possible "Star Trek" economy where social status could be based on a meritocracy. You get respect, stature, and control of an area by being the best possible candidate at what you have decided to do. Turn subsistence over to the machines: then humans will have true Freedom to pursue higher goals. Or just cut each others throats like usual, as said, plenty of people will try to twist away from Utopia.

Beamer wrote on Mar 18, 2011, 14:16:Reagan's tax cuts were done in favor or trickle down economics. The problem is we've had the exact opposite effect: rather than the tax cuts creating a cascade of wealth to the bottom it's instead created one from the middle to the top. Since those cuts the wealthy have become significantly wealthier.

This is called "Starving the Beast." It is a tactic to force smaller government at the expense, usually, of positive social programs.